In a remarkable moment for the legacy media, Phil Bronstein, the executive vice president and editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle actually notices that his industry is more than a little in the tank for President Obama:

This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we’re not.

You can’t blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played. Some of the time, it seems we’re even enthusiastically jumping into the pond without even being pushed. Is there an actual limit to the number of instances you can be the cover of Newsweek?

If I wanted to see highly manicured image management I’d just take some No-Doz and read Gavin Newsom’s tweets. But the Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we’re the girl. (In California, there’s no other option.)

Bronstein is also more than a little late to the party. Recall the interview that then-candidate Obama gave to Bronstein’s paper, the San Francisco Chronicle,in January of 2008. Obama told its editorial board, while a video camera was rolling, that “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can–it’s just that it will bankrupt them”, adding:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

If the news industry wasn’t a collective Victorian Gentleman, then Obama’s quotes on coal would be screamed in 48-point Times Roman Type on every newspaper’s front page–if only because it’s an incredible story, no matter what your thoughts on the environment.

In the above quote, Michael Malone writes, “Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal? The editors.” And he’s right. Check out what the editors at the San Francisco Chronicle signed off on: the Chronicle uploaded the video of their interview with Obama to their Website under the narcoleptic headline of “Obama’s straight-ahead style“–meaning they couldn’t stumble over anything the senator said that they want to highlight in their headline. Which means either the writers at the Chronicle don’t know a killer story when they see one–or they’re willing to bury such a story if it helps their man get into office. (See also: media and Edwards, John; note dramatic contrast with Plumber, J.T., and Palin, Sarah.)

When the MSM moans about the gallons of red ink it’s spilled since 2001, it needs to ask itself if it’s prepared to actually report the news, in a fashion that interests readers, or if it exists as a non-profit ideological support system.

Meanwhile, another member of the legacy media has a blinding flash of the obvious, long after it could actually have any impact on his profession. Howard Kurtz writes, “Most major newspapers haven’t covered the Letterman/Palin imbroglio, and it does make me wonder whether there’s a different standard for Palin.”

Related: Meanwhile, back at the Chronicle the slobbering love affair (to coin a phrase) goes on. Mark Morford, who last year dubbed then-candidate Obama as a “lightworker” (something akin to the Jedi Knights from Star Wars, as opposed to a senatorial slacker), this month writes that the “‘Age of Obama’ Brings Global Decline of Tangible Evil” as P.J. Gladnick summarizes.

4 Comments, 4 Threads

1.
Lon Evans

It’s strange how every once in a while someone like Phil Bronstein or Howard Kurtz comes out with some statement which suggests he still has the instinct and ethic of a real journalist. I can’t help but notice that it’s done so infrequently and so carefully (“…and it makes me wonder whether there’s a different standard for Palin.”) that there’s no chance it indicates any true self-examination or involves any serious effort to correct their systemic failure to do their jobs.

Gee – it’s almost as if these occasional flashes of (supposed) insight were just political theater intended to sustain the illusion that they’re serious journalists.

“I can’t help but notice that it’s done so infrequently and so carefully”

The infrequency minimizes the impact. The late Paul Weyrich used to point out that it took a consistent number of such utterances to make a real difference. Most people simply do not pay attention to serious matters. They probably won’t notice anything until minimally the fourth or fifth article appears.

Letterman is a deranged slob- and his tired 1985 schtick’s about as funny as a train wreck. I say give Todd Palin five minutes alone with this creep- maybe then he’d get the hard education in moral clarity that he so obviously lacks.

And if Sarah Palin is SO silly and irrelevant, why the obsession?

Clearly the Left noted her appeal, and are out to eliminate the threat- it’s not like it’s not obvious. She’s been highly successful in life while ignoring the left-wing feminist model… this helps to explain the extra dose of venom in the attacks.

Go get em, Sarah- and don’t mind the press, nobody will be listening to them anymore after the pending Obamamania implosion- can’t wait til this nightmare is over.